And here we are again, Bryan, with a real “two-fer” for you — homosexuality and evolution. I’m surprised you didn’t find a way to shoehorn Islam into the mix somehow …
Anyhow, there’s been a somewhat amusing story going on up at the Toronto Zoo about a pair of male penguins that like to hang out together, eschewing normal breeding behavior with female penguins. They are not “gay penguins” per se — the articles I’ve read don’t indicate any attempts to mate with each other, just no current attempts to mate with anyone, and non-mating pair bonding behavior between the two.
The zoo has decided to break up the pair and put them with some likely females to breed with. The penguins are there and registered as part of the “Species Survival Plan” for African penguins, so the zookeepers are going to — well, not force the matter, but take definite measures to encourage some of that cross-breeding to occur.
This, in turn, has led to all sorts of hullaballoo (some not very good-natured) about this being an imposition on the penguins’ gay rights, etc.
Which is where you come in, Bryan, where you attempt to tell us “The Real Lesson of the Gay Penguins“:
The zoological world is all atwitter over “gay” penguins.
Well, not really, but it’s attracted some mainstream headlines.
Two penguins at the Toronto Zoo, Buddy and Pedro by name, have been buddies for some time, and have formed some some kind of bond. They “preen” each other and spend a lot of time alone together.
Is there a reason you put quotation marks around “preen,” Bryan? Are you saying it wasn’t really preening, or that preen is just a funny word used by zoologists and/or gays?
It’s an exaggeration to say they’re gay, though, since there has been no observed sexual behavior between them.
Correct. As it was described:
“They do courtship and mating behaviours that females and males would do,’’ one keeper said in an interview.
Those behaviours include making a “braying’’ sound, almost like a donkey, as a mating call. They defend their territory, preen each other, and are constantly standing alone together. In fact when the Star visited the exhibit this week Buddy emerged from the water, followed a few moments later by Pedro. The two huddled together for quite some time.
Even the Toronto Sun doesn’t seem to need to put preen in quotation marks — though, of course, they’re Canadian, and you know what that means.
But homosexual activists, never ones to let facts or science get in the way of the truth, not only celebrate “gay” penguins, they write books about them. Tango Makes Three is the story of two male penguins who incubated an egg together and raise it together for a time, before they were tragically and cruelly separated by their human overlords.
This sort of male-male bonding has, in fact, been seen in penguins before — including egg incubation.
But zookeepers have run into the same biological fact over which the entire homosexual agenda trips and falls: males cannot mate. Males cannot conceive children together. Males cannot reproduce.
It takes, as it has since the dawn of creation, a male and a female to conceive offspring, whether in the world of humans or animals.
Except for asexual reproduction, of course. But, yes, there are some biological facts of life here, and I don’t think even the most fervent gay rights activist would disagree.
Of course there are some avenues around this. In the case of humans, we have things as high-tech as artificial insemination and as low-tech as adoption.
You do still need an egg and a sperm to get together somewhere in the process, and the incubation process in humans still requires a woman for nine months or so … but aside from those factors, child-rearing and family formation aren’t biologically dependent on a single male and single female setting up a household. No, really, Bryan — we have photos and everything to prove it.
So, sadly, zookeepers have been forced to bust up this loving homosexual couple because if they don’t, penguins might continue their march to extinction.
Are you using “sadly” ironically here, Bryan?
As the Toronto Star puts it, “the zoo intends to separate them from each other and pair them with females for breeding.”
According to the Star, the African penguin population has been declining by about two percent per year, and concerns have been raised about their long-term sustainability.
Correct. As noted above, the penguins are part of a species survival program. They need to be bred to increase numbers and churn up the genetic mix among the penguin population.
So, as should be the case in human politics, reality has trumped political correctness.
Except, of course, there is no human population decline. We’re not being forced to breed additional humans to deal with our dwindling numbers — anything but, in fact.
Though that does raise an interesting question, Bryan — if the human population were, in fact, dwindling, would you support forced breeding programs? Would infertile married couples be required to mate outside their pair-bonding (you know — that sacred and holy matrimony thing you go on and on about)? Would that be a case of “reality trumping political correctness,” “as should be”?
Just wondering. Let’s continue.
In truth, evolutionists should be even more ardent opponents of homosexual behavior than evangelical Christians, for one simple reason: homosexuals cannot propagate.
And evolution is supposed to be all about the survival of the species. For a true believer in evolution, homosexuality represents an evolutionary degrade, an lunge backward, an evolutionary nightmare, evidence of a species that is de-evolving and headed toward extinction.
For true Darwinists, homosexual behavior must be stopped its tracks so the great cosmic dance of life can continue in its inexorable climb toward evolutionary perfection.
See here (well, among many other places) is where you go off the rails, Bryan. “Evolutionists” don’t decree a moral imperative for evolution. It’s an observation, not a commandment. I know that’s hard for you to understand, but …
… Well, think of a meteorologist. A sunny day isn’t a sacred obligation, or a moral good, or a religious requirement. It simply is, something to be described and recorded and talked about. A meteorologist (as opposed to, say, a TV weather reporter) isn’t a high priest of the weather, proclaiming the gospel of sunshine or issuing frothing jeremiads against that cooling trend this coming weekend.
So an evolutionary scientist — or even a layperson who believes that evolution exists — is not advocating evolution. It’s not holy writ, or ecclesiastical mandate. It simply is. It’s observed, described, recognized, explained. It’s not about improvement per se, but improved survival for a given set of environmental circumstances. That some birds in the Galapagos evolved specialized bills to sip nectar from plants on one particular island and only that particular island isn’t a sign of moral rectitude — it’s a survival adaptation.
Yes, survival in this case is about passing on of genes. A species that failed to do so would, by definition, die out. But, again, that’s not a judgment of morality or immorality, just an observation, like noticing that a species that doesn’t eat will die out, too.
Further, though there may a personal survival instinct (explainable through evolution and common sense) to pass on one’s personal genes, evolution can act for species survival outside of that personal imperative. Consider bees, where the vast majority of individuals — workers — don’t pass their own genes on; that’s not counter-survival or an genetic sin or a sign of grotesque selfishness and hedonistic indulgence, or even an “evolutionary nightmare” — because the species continues, with specialized individuals (queens and their drone mates) taking care of the breeding business.
Similarly, among humans, we can survive and thrive as societies and as a race by doing things other than just breeding like bunnies. Adoption is a very straightforward example of this, whether we’re talking about gay couples, straight couples, or whatever. It helps the race survive, even if the individuals involved aren’t passing on their genetic code. We generally consider that a good thing.
So unless a Darwinist is a raving, irrational, self-contradictory hypocrite, he will oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior with every fiber of his being.
And you know your raving, irrational, self-contradictory hypocrites, Bryan, that’s for sure!
But I’m not holding my breath and neither should you. Since the theory of evolution is both morally and scientifically bankrupt, it should not surprise us that its devotees are as well.
Which just demonstrates once again, Bryan, that you have no idea what evolution means, or what it’s about. In your Manichean world, everything is a reflection of morality and immorality, sin or grace. There is nothing you believe that is not either good or evil. The weather and natural phenomena are sent in order to instruct or punish us. Gravity existsbecause God wants us to be weighed down with our sins. Two plus two equals four by divine mandate, and any approximation through estimation is probably a strategy of Satan.
Evolutionary science — like nuclear physics and geology and neurology and astrophysics — is not a moral anything. It describes, it doesn’t mandate or advocate or command.
Now, there are people who use evolutionary principles to seek what they consider moral ends. But evolution is not eugenics, any more than nuclear physics is an ICBM. That some people have used the observations of evolutionary science to seek to eliminate human populations they consider unfit is an immoral act — just as immoral, I’d say, as people using religion to seek to eliminate human populations they consider morally unfit.
To put a final nail in your mishmosh of theses here, Bryan — the penguin breeding program isn’t even about evolution. It’s about increasing the population, and making sure it’s as genetically diverse as possible, so as to protect the species from extinction. It is, in fact, arguably anti-evolutionary, as it’s meddling in the “natural course of things” by which this species is unable to adapt to its changing environment, and thus, evolution would tell us, would die out.
So let’s summarize, Bryan. You say:
- Gay penguins aren’t really gay. Yeah, I know, Bryan — you’re vested in the whole “gay = unnatural” and therefore insist that homosexual behavior can’t possibly exist in nature, only in sinful humans. On the other hand, given that gay people are, as people, defined by far more than just the plumbing they use during sex (just as straight people are), it’s not terribly helpful to try to project human relationships onto penguins. Maybe we’ll just call them “bachelor uncles” and go on.
- Zookeepers are being practical, vs politically correct, in trying to encourage the penguins to breed. I’m inclined to agree with you here, Bryan.
- Evolutionists should be anti-gay. No, not really. Evolutionary scientists might agree that gay individuals are less likely (without various additional steps) to pass on their personal genes, and might consider how that ties into the genetic basis for homosexuality … but they would also acknowledge that in human society, even moreso than penguins, there are plenty of “beneficial” things gays do to support the species, including caring for young that are not necessarily their own offspring.
- But, then, evolutionists are morally bankrupt. Dolt.